Thabiti Anyabwile, Rod Dreher, Doug Wilson, and CJ Mahaney: Who Is Really Dealing With Sex Abuse?

“But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers.”  James 2:9 (NIV)

https://twitter.com/MarkDever/status/557983332474966018
Screen Shot from Mark Dever's public Twitter account. Thabiti Anyabwile is third from the left in this picture of the celebrity gospel™ BFFs.

*********************

Our good friend, Todd Wilhelm, published Thabiti Anyabwile and The Mahaney Conversation We’re Still Not Having. He has given us permission to reprint his posts, either in full or part. As many of you may know, Todd used to attend a Sovereign Grace Church in Gilbert, Arizona before he used to attend UCC Dubai, a 9Marks church. His views on both 9Marks and SGM are helpful to those of us who have not had direct experiences with these entities. Todd is a stalwart supporter of those who have been hurt by SGM, either by sex abuse or ministry practices.

In the following excerpt, Todd notices something that Thabiti *forgot* to mention in a post he wrote on sex abuse.

When does Thabiti's finger pointing turn towards his buddies?


Thabiti Anyabwile has written an excellent article titled “The Cosby Conversation We’re Still Not Having.”  Anyabwile addresses the well-known Bill Cosby sexual abuse scandal and says the Cosby case should have driven a national conversation about sexual abuse but this conversation has not taken place. Anyabwile states:

“We seem to have forgotten the society-wide need to protect our daughters, sisters and wives against the predations of men… 
What we are not discussing is how to prevent the many Cosbys in our homes, families, friendship networks, schools and churches from preying upon our daughters, sisters, and mothers…
There are many working in the trenches, but comparatively their numbers are few. And I suspect far too few churches lend their voices to this cause. We are complicit in our silence…
We can significantly impact the safety and well-being of women by breaking our silence, speaking against violence, abuse and sexual entitlement, and insisting on the prosecution of offenders. We must speak up if we ever hope to end this scourge.”

To which I reply, Amen brother, preach it!

Anyabwile ends saying: 

“Sitting a couple seats from my wife and teenage girls, I kept thinking, I will fight. I will fight. I will fight for the black girls in my home, in my community, and around the world. Let’s fight for them together.”

I’m with you Pastor Anyabwile; I would only add that I will fight for girls of all colors and also for the boys that many pedophiles victimize.

The problem, as I see it, is there is a very real disconnect between Anyabwile’s call to action and his action.  Do you recall a similar “call to action” by Dr. Mohler in 2011? Allow me to refresh your memory:

“A Christian hearing a report of sexual abuse within a church, Christian organization, or Christian school, needs to act in exactly the same manner called for if the abuse is reported in any other context. The church and Christian organizations must not become safe places for abusers. These must be safe places for children, and for all. Any report of sexual abuse must lead immediately to action. That action cannot fall short of contacting law enforcement authorities. A clear lesson of the Penn State scandal is this: Internal reporting is simply not enough.”    -Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr.,  The Tragic Lessons of Penn State – A Call To Action” November 10, 2011

This all sounds great, but we have seen both men’s words are meaningless in light of their continuing support for C.J. Mahaney. 


Does Thabiti endorse CJ Mahaney by his actions?

Todd Wilhelm points out a real problem in Thabiti's essay. It is quite easy for us to point our fingers at public figures, rich actors, etc. However,Thabiti has been quite supportive of CJ Mahaney, choosing to disregard the numerous allegations of child sex abuse in that organization. I highly doubt that Thabiti has ever met with one of the families whose children were abused. However, he rarely misses an opportunity to hang with his BFFs.

In fact, Thabiti has made a concerted effort to speak at CJ Mahaney's church which sounds like an endorsement to me. Over at Todd's blog, you will see a few pictures like the one that is at the top of this post. Thabiti is tight with Al Mohler, CJ Mahaney, John Piper, Mark Dever and other celebrities who speak feelingly about sex abuse unless that chicken comes home to roost in the backyard of a BFF.

Why did Thabiti delete a comment by Todd and then block him from his website?

Todd, being a man of conviction, left the following comment on Thabiti's blog.

Screen Shot 2015-09-30 at 3.21.51 PM

Thabiti did what all the manly, complementarian, brave, gospel™ BFFs do, he deleted it with no comment. Oh, and he has blocked Todd from commenting on his blog in the future. Such gospel™courage…

Rod Dreher writes about Steve Sitler and Doug Wilson by name.

Now, let's look at a man who actually discusses this issue and does so by calling Pastor Doug Wilson to account. Writing for The American Conservative, Rod Dreher looks at the Doug Wilson/pedophile situation in Scandal in Moscow.

He first reviewed the Sitler situation and quoted Doug Wilson directly.

Wilson defends his actions forcefully in this September 5 “open letter” on his blog. Excerpt:

Seventh, in the latest round of accusations, much has been made of the fact that Christ Church approved of Steven’s wedding to Katie through the fact that I officiated at the wedding. First, it should be noted that in our community, weddings are not arranged or determined by the church. Katie and her family had all the facts when she agreed to marry Steven, which was important, but the decision to marry was the couple’s decision, not ours. That said, I officiated at the wedding and was glad to do so. While we do not believe that marriage is an automatic “fix” for the temptations to molest children, we agree with Judge Stegner who approved the wedding and said that ‘an age-appropriate relationship with a member of the opposite sex from Mr. Sitler is one of the best things that can happen to him and to society” (emphasis added). Moreover, if everything is on the table, we do not believe the church has the authority to prohibit or “not allow” a lawful marriage.

Dreher retorted:

Really? The church has no authority to prohibit a lawful marriage? I suppose same-sex couples in Idaho can show up at Christ Church and expect Pastor Wilson to marry them, then. This, and the claim that the church can’t withhold marriage from anybody, as long as both parties know what they’re getting into, is a pretty shameless example of passing the buck for a disaster. Wilson subsequently praised himself for the way he’s conducted himself in this matter, saying that persecution is a sign of his righteousness, and sneering that his wife celebrated the criticism coming their way by buying him a bottle of single-malt Scotch.

Shortly after this, Doug Wilson wrote a response to Dreher's post, accusing Dreher of

1. Not returning Wilson's email.

I did write an editor at The American Conservative yesterday to ask about space to respond. I haven’t heard back. I also wrote Rod to see if he were interested in any private communication. I haven’t heard back there either. For someone in his position, I believe that he should be heartily ashamed of himself. This was really bad.

2. Not doing any fact checking

The American Conservative does this hit piece, and clicks publish within a few hours of even hearing about the slander. No fact checking, no inquiries to find out if there were more to the story, no reasonable caution at all. If every word of these slanders were true — as they are manifestly not — this would simply be a case of Rod Dreher getting lucky.

However, Dreher is an accomplished writer. He called out Wilson again for both claims.

I have received no e-mail from Doug Wilson, neither at my TAC address, nor at my private address. Just so you know.

Second, who is Doug Wilson, of all people, to get mad at others on the Internet for not doing “due diligence” and fact-checking before writing about something? I filled my post with links to primary documents from the court record (including letters signed by Wilson), media reports, and statements on the matter from Wilson himself. For the sake of brevity in an already long post, I linked to a summary of the Jamin Wight case by a group called Homeschoolers Anonymous. I trust my readers to examine all of these links and judge for themselves.

He then proceeded to analyze Wilson's responses to those who critique him.

Wilson’s strategy, and those of some of his vocal supporters, is very familiar in the story of how religious figures and institutions handle sexual abuse: blame those who draw critical attention to him and his actions, get legalistic with Bible quotes in an attempt to get critics to be silent, question their motives, suggest implausible conspiracies, or flat-out say that the critics hate God.

He evidently believes that Wilson has much to answer for and that Wilson's flip of the bird at his critics is not smart.

Given all we know about pedophilia and pedophiles, and given that this wedding didn’t take place in the distant past, but in 2011, Wilson has a lot more to answer for than he thinks. Being cute on the Internet is not going to make the questions go away.

Who really cares about the issues surrounding pedophiles and sex abuse? Is it Thabiti Anyabwile who speaks of his concerns but studiously ignores the elephant in the Coalition of BFFs or Rod Dreher who  says "Here it is. Look at it?" Sometimes, *name it and claim it* is necessary in order to deal with the horrors of sex abuse.

Comments

Thabiti Anyabwile, Rod Dreher, Doug Wilson, and CJ Mahaney: Who Is Really Dealing With Sex Abuse? — 173 Comments

  1. When does Thabiti’s finger pointing turn towards his buddies?

    Never.
    One Hand Washes the Other.

    “ONE OF US! ONE OF US!
    GOOBLE! GOBBLE! ONE OF US!”
    — Todd Borwning, Freaks

  2. In fact, Thabiti has made a concerted effort to speak at CJ Mahaney’s church which sounds like an endorsement to me. Over at Todd’s blog, you will see a few pictures like the one that is at the top of this post.

    Is Thabiti the token black in the pic?

  3. There isn’t much I agree with Rod Dreher about, but his post, and his forthrightness, made me cry because *someone got it* and was willing to use his considerable writing skills to inform his audience. I sent Dreher an e-mail thanking him for the article.

    As for Douglas Wilson, he needs to man up and stop hiding behind his version of Matthew 18 and “fact checking.” I flatly told Wilson on his blog that I was looking for the libel and I didn’t see it. Given that Wilson is now allegedly deleting comments, I expect that not to see the light of day either.

  4. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Is Thabiti the token black in the pic?

    Looks like it.

    You know, one thing I don’t understand is why, when Anyabwile converted back to Christianity from Islam, why he didn’t take back his birth name of Ron Burns? Perhaps he went to the trouble of legally changing his name, which would then make it difficult to change it back, but, on the other hand, you have got to admit that “Thabiti Anyabwile” is far more attention-grabbing than “Ron Burns.”

    Oh yeah, and I found, from looking at a recounting of Anyabwile’s path, that he and his wife landed at Capitol Hill Baptist Church in DC. He’s beholden to that group of people in the photo.

  5. Nancy2 wrote:

    Well, well. I believe Matt Chandler is in that BFF photo, too!

    Yep, it is the Gospel(TM) glitterati. Are we going to have pictures of these holy Puritan men from T4C?

  6. @ mirele:

    I have also wondered why Thabiti did not take back his name given at birth. Another Raleigh connection…he graduated from N.C. State University.

  7. Dee asks rhetorically, “Why did Thabiti delete a comment by Todd and then block him from his website?”

    Not because he has any real interest in protecting women and children. Todd asked a challenging question to which none of the Gospel Glitterati have a good answer. Because there is no good answer. So they shoot the questioner. Sinning by questioning, etc. per Driscoll. We are the problem because we refuse to bow to them. They are thin-skinned, entitled, brittle and cowardly. They have mis-defined manliness as being in power when true manliness and true womanliness being Christ-like in our desire to defend and protect the weak. Their own words and actions demonstrate that they do not believe the words of the Bible they profess to highly value but rather value being part of their Circle of Friends.

  8. IIRC, Thabiti said he kept his name due to pride in it being an African name or something like that. It certainly is more memorable than Ron Burns, but I wonder what his parents think about that?

  9. “Who is Doug Wilson…?” I love the attitude behind this. Bravo!!

    I hope more people keep pushing him and keep asking, “Who do you think you are?”

  10. Nice words by Thabiti but they are absolutely meaningless coming from him when he won’t call out any of the Gospel Glitterati for the same thing. Like all the rest of that crowd, he’s a two-faced hypocrite who keeps proving over and over that they are lacking in moral fiber and are a big reason why so many think Christianity is bogus. He had no shame in appearing at a conference last week pontificating on disciplining pew peons – but disciplining a fellow luminary? {chirp} Apparently, the Gospel Glitterati are held to a lower standard-or none at all.

  11. mirele wrote:

    You know, one thing I don’t understand is why, when Anyabwile converted back to Christianity from Islam, why he didn’t take back his birth name of Ron Burns?

    This is the first I have heard of this. I had no idea. The old Jerry Rivers as Geraldo Rivera trick. It is certainly more exotic than Ron Burns.

  12. On face value, the sentiment is admirable, but it’s interesting that boys don’t get a mention. Given the current attitudes, I wonder when he says “we” should protect women and girls if he means the big “we” that includes women or if it’s the man’s role to do the protecting with women and girls meekly taking the role of “protected”.

  13. @ Jack:
    My guess, given his POV on gender roles, is that it did not occur to him that boys might need protection from abusers of various kinds. ISTM that courage and protectiveness is a virtue which is not limited by God or common sense to one gender.

  14. I would only add that I will fight for girls of all colors and also for the boys that many pedophiles victimize.

    Thanks for this, because I had the same thought, i.e. “Uh, boys are abused too…”

  15. I was impressed with Dreher’s piece and very glad that he called out Wilson about the email thing. I wonder how they will try to spin (conservative anti-gay marriage) Dreher as part of the Vast Liberal Feminazi Conspiracy to Destroy Doug.

  16. I wrote about Thabiti as well. I pose the question….Is CJ Mahaney the “Bill Cosby of Neo-Calvinism?” I explain why and draw the parallels between both men. I had not planned to write this as I liked what Todd had said. However, my alma mater Marquette University made national news for revoking an honorary degree to Bill Cosby. That spurred me to write that. I want to write a longer, more detailed post as to what Mark Dever and Al Mohler can learn from a Jesuit Catholic University in Milwaukee! 😛

    https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2015/09/30/is-cj-mahaney-the-bill-cosby-of-neo-calvinism-the-mahaney-conversation-that-thabiti-anyabwile-needs-to-have/

  17. @ Jack:
    Your comment also reminded me about the indignation of certain SBC bloggers about parents raising fire-breathing daughters. Perhaps if Thabiti taught girls and women *not* to defer to males–as opposed to what he and the other Patriarchs do teach females–and if daughters were raised to breathe some holy fire when they are mistreated, then we might not see so much abuse. Same for boys and men who are abused. Taking abuse is not a means of grace.

    The sad irony is that Thabiti would be highly indignant if anyone suggested that black persons should defer to white persons just because the respective persons are “white” or “black” and they should do so without complaint and joyfully because God ordained it, which is what some used to say about the curse on Canaan. But it is the same thing, and a reasonable person would think that he would understand this.

  18. @ Gram3:

    Excellent points all the way around.

    I too was a little disturbed or alarmed by Anyabwile’s rhetoric about how men should protect daughters, wives, sisters.

    Not that I am not opposed to men defending or helping women, but I think girls and women should be taught it’s okay to be assertive and to defend themselves.

    One of the reason girls and women are sometimes assaulted to start with is because in both secular culture and gender complementarian Christianity, women are heavily pressured, taught, and socialized to be passive.

    Being assertive for females in some Christian groups (e.g., complementarians) is considered to be catty and unladylike – so women are taught that lacking boundaries and assertiveness is godly and is ‘biblical womanhood.’ That really leaves them way more vulnerable to being abused or to being targeted for abuse.

  19. Daisy wrote:

    Not that I am not opposed to men defending or helping women

    Oh, one too many “nots” in that statement!
    Hopefully everyone knows what I meant. I’m not against men helping women is what I was trying to say.

  20. Gram3 wrote:

    IIRC, Thabiti said he kept his name due to pride in it being an African name or something like that. It certainly is more memorable than Ron Burns, but I wonder what his parents think about that?

    I’ve wanted to change my legal name for years but won’t do it because my mother is still alive. It’s not that I hate the name, but nobody can pronounce it. So yeah, I wonder what Anyabwile’s parents think about that.

  21. Gram3 wrote:

    Perhaps if Thabiti taught girls and women *not* to defer to males–as opposed to what he and the other Patriarchs do teach females–and if daughters were raised to breathe some holy fire when they are mistreated, then we might not see so much abuse. Same for boys and men who are abused. Taking abuse is not a means of grace.

    Daisy wrote:

    One of the reason girls and women are sometimes assaulted to start with is because in both secular culture and gender complementarian Christianity, women are heavily pressured, taught, and socialized to be passive.
    Being assertive for females in some Christian groups (e.g., complementarians) is considered to be catty and unladylike – so women are taught that lacking boundaries and assertiveness is godly and is ‘biblical womanhood.’ That really leaves them way more vulnerable to being abused or to being targeted for abuse.

    AMEN to both of those comments from a catty (as in Bengal tiger) woman and her fire-breathing daughter!
    When my daughter was 18, she broke up with a boyfriend who was bad news. He didn’t take it well became violent with her. She hit him in the head with a ratchet, stunning him long enough to get away from him. If she hadn’t fought back, there’s no telling what he would have done.
    P.S. The ex-boyfriend is in prison now, serving a 25 year sentence.

  22. “The Cosby Conversation We’re Still Not Having.”
    Note to Thabiti Anyabwile, it is hard to have a conversation when you delete comments and block people.

  23. This is the kind of defender that Wilson has.

    From the comments on Dreher’s post:

    “William Dalton says:
    September 30, 2015 at 2:31 pm
    “[NFR: Oh, come on. Nobody is talking about his salvation, and he was not a man who was a horndog. He is a convicted pedophile! And the church’s leadership encouraged this young woman to marry him! — RD]”

    Yes, he’s a convicted pedophile. Is there any evidence he is a danger to his own child, or would be to his children, if he continues to father them?

    In the Jamin Wright case, his pastor, Peter Leithart, apologized because it was found that Wright continued in misbehavior after he was welcomed into the church’s fellowship. The Pastor did not give adequate pastoral supervision and led people to believe he was safer than he was.

    Is there any such evidence in the case of Sitler? It is said, apparently on the basis of a polygraph examination, that Sitler “had contact with his child that resulted in actual sexual stimulation.” What does this mean? That he acknowledged that he had experienced sexual arousal in the presence of his child? That he denied it, but the polygraph examiner interpreted that as an evasive answer? What it does not say is that his encounter with his child resulted in the “actual sexual stimulation” of the child. There is no evidence he has engaged in any sexual misconduct since his marriage, much less with his own child. And now he is being denied the right to live with his own wife and child, the most fundamental right I can imagine in a non-totalitarian state, and without any evidence of wrong-doing on his part. This is all a product of a pattern of unwarranted intrusiveness of the American legal system into American marriages and families. What, because we no longer allow courts to punish most crimes of a sexual nature, we give them license to double down on those we do permit them to police, even in the absence of evidence to do so?

    How many fathers have not, at some time, experienced an erection looking at their comely daughter? This is human nature. There is no crime unless unlawful feelings precipitate unlawful actions. Most men who experience sexual arousal in the presence of their adult daughters control themselves. Why should our expectations be any different of the man who experiences sexual arousal in the presence of his infant child, if that, indeed, is what has happened in Sitler’s case?

    No, there is no evidence here of Sitler misbehaving in any way. There was no reason, from the record you have cited, for Sitler to be taken to court, much less to be removed from his own home and family, and there was no reason to chide his pastor for helping this couple to come together, be married and form a family.

    Rod, you say you have not set forth any untrue facts. The problem is you haven’t set forth facts, even if true, which justify your judgment and your actions.

    [NFR: I just want to think for a second or two about the question about fathers, daughters and erections. And then I want to think for a half-second about your saying that it’s no big deal if a man becomes sexually stimulated by the presence of his infant son. Have you read all the court documents in the Sitler case, William? If not, take a look here. — RD]”

  24. @ Corbin:
    William Dalton is a pervert, too!

    Warren Throckmorton said this in a patheos article today:
    “According to some near the situation (speaking to me anonymously), things are getting more and more unsettled in Moscow with some of the empire unraveling. There might be more Scotch in Wilson’s future.”

  25. Nancy2 wrote:

    things are getting more and more unsettled in Moscow with some of the empire unraveling.

    Can you imagine being raised in that church? Lets hope that this will cause many people to leave that place forever.

  26. It looks like the truth is closing in on DW. Eventually something has got to give. Me thinks it may be like a war of attrition. Slowly, the numbers will dwindle from the roles at Christ Church. Slowly members will come to their senses and leave.

  27. Nancy2 wrote:

    AMEN to both of those comments from a catty (as in Bengal tiger) woman and her fire-breathing daughter!
    When my daughter was 18, she broke up with a boyfriend who was bad news. He didn’t take it well became violent with her. She hit him in the head with a ratchet, stunning him long enough to get away from him. If she hadn’t fought back, there’s no telling what he would have done.
    P.S. The ex-boyfriend is in prison now, serving a 25 year sentence.

    ROAR!!

  28. The American Conservative has posted Doug Wilson’s response. It is despicable!
    My heart goes out to Natalie and her father.

  29. Hester wrote:

    I was impressed with Dreher’s piece and very glad that he called out Wilson about the email thing. I wonder how they will try to spin (conservative anti-gay marriage) Dreher as part of the Vast Liberal Feminazi Conspiracy to Destroy Doug.

    They can study Comrade Stalin and Chairman Mao for a how-to.

    Or George Orwell’s novel-length political cartoon on the first of the above.

  30. Lisa wrote:

    The American Conservative has posted Doug Wilson’s response. It is despicable!

    Another Smirk from the Jerk in the Kirk.

  31. Gram3 said:

    “Taking abuse is not a means of grace.”

    This point needs to be hammered home throughout the entire Body of Christ. Too many Christians seem to think that we are all the equivalent of 1st century slaves being mistreated by their earthly masters. Even persecution is not something we volunteer for, if we can escape it.

  32. Corbin wrote:

    This is the kind of defender that Wilson has.
    From the comments on Dreher’s post:
    “William Dalton says:
    September 30, 2015 at 2:31 pm
    “[NFR: Oh, come on. Nobody is talking about his salvation, and he was not a man who was a horndog. He is a convicted pedophile! And the church’s leadership encouraged this young woman to marry him! — RD]”
    Yes, he’s a convicted pedophile. Is there any evidence he is a danger to his own child, or would be to his children, if he continues to father them?
    In the Jamin Wright case, his pastor, Peter Leithart, apologized because it was found that Wright continued in misbehavior after he was welcomed into the church’s fellowship. The Pastor did not give adequate pastoral supervision and led people to believe he was safer than he was.
    Is there any such evidence in the case of Sitler? It is said, apparently on the basis of a polygraph examination, that Sitler “had contact with his child that resulted in actual sexual stimulation.” What does this mean? That he acknowledged that he had experienced sexual arousal in the presence of his child? That he denied it, but the polygraph examiner interpreted that as an evasive answer? What it does not say is that his encounter with his child resulted in the “actual sexual stimulation” of the child. There is no evidence he has engaged in any sexual misconduct since his marriage, much less with his own child. And now he is being denied the right to live with his own wife and child, the most fundamental right I can imagine in a non-totalitarian state, and without any evidence of wrong-doing on his part. This is all a product of a pattern of unwarranted intrusiveness of the American legal system into American marriages and families. What, because we no longer allow courts to punish most crimes of a sexual nature, we give them license to double down on those we do permit them to police, even in the absence of evidence to do so?
    How many fathers have not, at some time, experienced an erection looking at their comely daughter? This is human nature. There is no crime unless unlawful feelings precipitate unlawful actions. Most men who experience sexual arousal in the presence of their adult daughters control themselves. Why should our expectations be any different of the man who experiences sexual arousal in the presence of his infant child, if that, indeed, is what has happened in Sitler’s case?
    No, there is no evidence here of Sitler misbehaving in any way. There was no reason, from the record you have cited, for Sitler to be taken to court, much less to be removed from his own home and family, and there was no reason to chide his pastor for helping this couple to come together, be married and form a family.
    Rod, you say you have not set forth any untrue facts. The problem is you haven’t set forth facts, even if true, which justify your judgment and your actions.
    [NFR: I just want to think for a second or two about the question about fathers, daughters and erections. And then I want to think for a half-second about your saying that it’s no big deal if a man becomes sexually stimulated by the presence of his infant son. Have you read all the court documents in the Sitler case, William? If not, take a look here. — RD]”

    they subtly move the goal posts on arguments until they think they’re in the clear. How is getting an erection from an infant remotely similar to getting an erection from a “comely daughter” (aside from both being pretty deviant)?

  33. From Doug Wilson’s response to Rod Dreher:

    “At issue was whether he was going to be charged as pedophile, and placed in the same category as one who was molesting little children. But we believed his crime was not in the same category as Steven Sitler’s crimes at all. Steven’s behavior was with young children and was simply predatory. Jamin’s crime was that of engaging in sexual behavior with an underage girl.”

    This right here had me almost cussing out loud. SIMPLY predatory? And Jamin’s wasn’t because his victim was a teenager?? What. The. #(@&)*$^?!!!!!

    Further down, DW said this:

    “They [Natalie’s physical attributes] are irrelevant to whether Jamin was selfishly manipulating a young girl, preying on her for his own selfish ends.”

    Yes, he was preying on her. Doug just contradicted himself here.

  34. In that same email, DW makes an assertion to which Natalie will need to respond.

    “The reason we did not want it treated as pedophilia is that her parents had bizarrely brought Jamin into the house as a boarder so that he could conduct a secret courtship with Natalie. So Jamin was in a romantic relationship with a young girl, her parents knew of the relationship and encouraged it, her parents permitted a certain measure of physical affection to exist between them (e.g. hand-holding), Natalie was a beautiful and striking young woman, and at the time was about eight inches taller than Jamin was. Her parents believed that she was mature enough to be in that relationship, and the standards they set for the relationship would have been reasonable if she had in fact been of age and if the two had not been living under the same roof.”

    And then there’s this:

    “Nevertheless Jamin was brought into the house in order to make Natalie the object of his romantic intentions, and to do so more conveniently, out of the eyes of community accountability. The arrangement became public years later, and with much harm done.”

    At this point, Doug Wilson’s version of the story (or is it the version told to him by Natalie’s mother?) diverges significantly from the version Natalie herself has told. Somebody is not telling the truth here.

  35. Thank you, Dee, for this post. And thank you, Todd, for your willingness to “speak truth to power” to Burns/Anyabwile, regardless of the response (and to you, Dee and Deb).

    I thoroughly enjoyed the Dreher piece in the American Conservative. In taking on Dreher, Wilson has likely bitten off more than he can chew rhetorically. I hope to enjoy watching Dreher put Wilson back into his linguistic place, a la Steve Martin’s insult scene in Roxanne.

    Carl Trueman, though not beloved by everyone on this site, also pointed to the Dreher piece and asked some good, albeit rhetorical, questions of Wilson:

    Rod Dreher has a typically pungent piece on the matters that have apparently caused much hilarity and Scotch drinking in Moscow, Idaho. I wonder what Rod’s particular problem is? Is he an idiot incapable of reading English? A buffoon who doesn’t understand the brilliance of self-published Muscovite rhetoric? Some envious and evil figure out to destroy a venerable ministry? Or a bitter and nasty nobody, using the opportunity for a bit of one-up-manship? We eagerly await enlightenment as to which of the standard simplistic categories Rod is to be assigned and thus dismissed.

  36. Burwell Stark,

    Lol…any time I read that paragraph I can just hear Carl saying it all in that British accent of his.

  37. NJ wrote:

    At this point, Doug Wilson’s version of the story (or is it the version told to him by Natalie’s mother?) diverges significantly from the version Natalie herself has told. Somebody is not telling the truth here.

    Wilson’s version has been soundly thrashed at Natalie’s blog and also in what her father wrote.

    Since Wilson has repeatedly shown himself to be a stretcher and evader of truth, it is sensible to be skeptical of any contradictory material he writes, and to require that he erase that skepticism be proving the accuracy of what he says.

  38. NJ wrote:

    urther down, DW said this:
    “They [Natalie’s physical attributes] are irrelevant to whether Jamin was selfishly manipulating a young girl, preying on her for his own selfish ends.”
    Yes, he was preying on her. Doug just contradicted himself here.

    If Doug believes Natalie’s physical attributes were irrelevant to the case as he states, and they most definitely were, then why does he keep pointing out her physical attributes as a young teenager?? Why did he support Jamin in court? Why did he write letters on Jamin’s behalf. Why has Jamin’s former pastor recognized Jamin’s predatory behavior (and sort of apologized) and Doug Wilson hasn’t?

  39. Bridget wrote:

    If Doug believes Natalie’s physical attributes were irrelevant to the case as he states, and they most definitely were, then why does he keep pointing out her physical attributes as a young teenager??

    Because he’s a Dirty Old Man?

    And probably a Dom — “PENETRATE! COLONIZE! CONQUER! PLANT! PENETRATE! COLONIZE! CONQUER! PLANT!”

  40. NJ wrote:

    Burwell Stark,

    Lol…any time I read that paragraph I can just hear Carl saying it all in that British accent of his.

    That “Veddy Veddy” British Accent from under the Kirk-approved Bowler Hat?

  41. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:

    I seriously doubt that Trueman is Kirk-approved. Trueman is classical Reformed, OPC and a genuine scholar. Wilson is reformed inasmuch that he can talk about theology and drink Scotch and has the intellectual clout of braying mule.

    (An aside, I believe the quote cloud is coming out of the wrong end of the dog on Wilson’s site.)

  42. Bridget wrote:

    Why has Jamin’s former pastor recognized Jamin’s predatory behavior (and sort of apologized) and Doug Wilson hasn’t?

    That is an interesting question. If Wilson’s assertion is correct, then did Leithart know about this “secret courtship?” If Leithart did not know about the “secret courtship” but found out about it later, why would he not have mentioned that in his acknowledgement (I cannot call it an apology.) Surely Wilson would have informed Leithart about such “courtship” since Wight was a member of Leithart’s church and back then Wilson and Leithart were tight as ticks. But Leithart says nothing about any covert “courtship.”

    Leithart has gone on to other pursuits with Theopolis, and I think he needs to put distance between himself and Wilson. Or perhaps there was a parting of the ways in Moscow and that is why Leithart left Wilsonland. In any case, something does not tally.

  43. Bridget wrote:

    Why has Jamin’s former pastor recognized Jamin’s predatory behavior (and sort of apologized) and Doug Wilson hasn’t?

    Wilson has an empire to protect which extends way beyond Moscow. That’s the pragmatic reason which is the same reason that we have not heard *any* apologies from the Gospel Glitterati for their failures, IMO. And I do not consider Chandler’s statement an apology beyond “mistakes in implementation were made without sufficient sensitivity.”

  44. __

    “Felony Baloney?”

    hmmm…

      Wartburg, unless you can cook up something that sticks to 501(c)3 ‘religious teflon’ ™ , these New Calvinist pastoral ‘birds’ have flown. 

    Sopy

    🙂

  45. Nancy2 wrote:

    AMEN to both of those comments from a catty (as in Bengal tiger) woman and her fire-breathing daughter!
    When my daughter was 18, she broke up with a boyfriend who was bad news. He didn’t take it well became violent with her. She hit him in the head with a ratchet, stunning him long enough to get away from him. If she hadn’t fought back, there’s no telling what he would have done.
    P.S. The ex-boyfriend is in prison now, serving a 25 year sentence.

    I am so glad your daughter got away okay.

    Being socialized to be sweet all the time and to lack boundaries can make you more attractive as a target to bullies and abusers. That happened to me a lot since childhood.

    In books such as Gavin DeBecker’s “The Gift of Fear,” he has a chapter or two explaining how society’s habit of socializing girls to lack boundaries, to put other people’s feelings and concerns ahead of their own (gender complementarian Christianity also does this as well and uses cherry picked Bible verses to defend it), puts them in dangerous situations.

    A lot of women will do something, for instance, like get on an elevator all alone with a strange man when their intuition is screaming at them to stay away, because there seems to be something “off” about the man, but they go ahead and step on the elevator with the man, because they are afraid of offending or hurting the man’s feelings!

    DeBecker has several more examples in his book, real life examples, of women who were mugged, etc, due to that sort of socialization. I have read other real life examples in other books on similar subjects by other authors.

    My mother (who was a Christian who was codependent and into traditional gender role views) was definitely big into that – she seemed to believe one of the worst sins a person could commit was to hurt someone else’s feelings.

    So, even if someone was being rude or abusive to you, my mother felt you should just sit there in silence and tolerate the horrible behavior. She felt that is what God expected of Christians (especially women/ girls).

    This sort of thinking helps to explain, too, why so many Christian women stay stuck in abusive marriages for so long. They’re taught to sacrifice their health and safety for the man’s ego, the man’s pride / happiness, or just to keep the marriage together.

  46. @ Corbin:

    How many fathers have not, at some time, experienced an erection looking at their comely daughter? This is human nature. … Most men who experience sexual arousal in the presence of their adult daughters control themselves.

    Let’s just say this tells us WAY more about the author of the comment than about anything related to Wilson or the Sitler family.

  47. Corbin wrote:

    How many fathers have not, at some time, experienced an erection looking at their comely daughter? This is human nature. There is no crime unless unlawful feelings precipitate unlawful actions. Most men who experience sexual arousal in the presence of their adult daughters control themselves.

    😯 That was in a comment on some blog page? Nasty.

    I would hope that the majority of men do not have sexual feelings towards their own daughters.

    People leaving those comments don’t seem to grasp how dangerous pedophiles are or can be.

    The poster seems to be arguing that Sitler admitting to having sexual reactions to his own kid is not enough – so what is enough for this person, for Sitler to actually touch the child? By then it’s a bit too late.

    I’m a supporter of prevention. If you know the guy has feelings for his own infant son, you don’t want him around the baby. In a case like this, I’d say “better safe than sorry” would apply.

    Total Yikes and Ick factor on some Christians with this stuff.

    Reminds me back when J D Hall (and his buddies) was Tweeting to Janet Mefferd (I think this was during the TVC / Root dust up?) that all, or most Christian men, are wanna-be sexual predators who do fantasize about sexually assaulting women.

    Hall or someone told Janet, “Why I’m sure even your husband has fantasized about assualting a woman or a kid at some time, hey, who has not??” – I was like, me, that’s who, and I’m sure plenty of others.

  48. NJ wrote:

    Gram3 said:
    “Taking abuse is not a means of grace.”
    This point needs to be hammered home throughout the entire Body of Christ. Too many Christians seem to think that we are all the equivalent of 1st century slaves being mistreated by their earthly masters. Even persecution is not something we volunteer for, if we can escape it.

    I agree.

    A lot of Christians seem to think enduring an abusive marriage, physical ailment, harassment on a job, or whatever trial in life, should be done in gratitude, or that such things are great because they supposedly “sanctify” a person.

    I think it’s a demented way of looking at suffering, personally. The people who adhere to this view seem rather warped and lacking in compassion, often times.

    Instead of teaching people to flee abusive situations or pain, this sort of theology of suffering teaches people to stay put and put up with it.

  49. Bridget wrote:

    If Doug believes Natalie’s physical attributes were irrelevant to the case as he states, and they most definitely were, then why does he keep pointing out her physical attributes as a young teenager??

    It’s because any hint that a girl is going/has gone through puberty means they may be in possession of Breasts & Curves, against which any normal Christian man in entirely unable to behave in a rational, responsible or legal way?
    If it was a 23 yr old woman & a 13 yr old boy would they feel the same? The ick factor is off the scale, especially with that comment on his blog about ‘fatherly’ erections…run, run away.

  50. On Sept 10, Wilson blogged, “The twittermob has been circulating numerous untruths, among them that Steven Sitler is a child rapist. He was actually convicted of one count of Lewd Conduct with a Minor under 16 years of age (Idaho Code 18-1508).”
    About a week later he clarified, “Important clarification: When I say above that Steven was convicted of one count, I was not meaning that this was his only offense, and neither was I seeking to minimize the egregiousness of his behavior in those other instances…My apologies to any friends who missed my meaning here, and who thought I was trying to trim and be cute on Steven’s behalf. Such a misreading would be my responsibility.”
    So his friends would have misread if they thought he was saying, previously, that it was untrue that Sitler is a child rapist.
    He now is going to great lengths to distinguish Wight’s crimes from Sitler’s. Technically, he has point, because “pedophile” is an accurate description of Sitler but not of Wight. But both are rapists, and Sitler raped children, which my lack of reading comprehension interpreted Wilson as thinking untrue. Maybe it all depends upon what “is” is. Oh, I’m so confused…

  51. Just for the record, in the comments on the aforementioned blog (supposedly about The Only Kind of Gospel There Is”) Doug and Naralie had an exchange. Due to technical difficulties on the Mablog, these comments are no lionger visible there:
    Natalie Rose Greenfield Doug, this is Natalie. I’m not sure why you were unable to reply on my blog post. I don’t screen the comments first so anyone should be able to post on there.
Anyhow, I’ve spoken with both of my parents this morning concerning this particular comment of yours and I truly cannot imagine what information you could possibly have about my family that could ‘shut down the party’. Regardless, and to respect my mother’s wishes for privacy, you won’t be getting that permission anytime soon and I think you probably already know that. I’ll call your bluff on this one.
Additionally, I would like you to know that many people within your church as well as people who have peaceably left the church, have written letters of sincere apology to my family for the way the situation was handled, for trusting the wrong person, for defending the wrong person, for allowing themselves to be fooled by a dangerous criminal. There is some real, healthy discussion happening about how churches can better handle sexual abuse, and it’s so encouraging. Some of these individuals are even former pastors and elders of Christ Church/Trinity…

    * 

Douglas Wilson Natalie, thanks for answering here. I tried to reply on Katie’s blog. At first Word Press required a password I didn’t have. This morning I signed in there with Facebook instead and left a comment. Last I checked, it had not been cleared.
Since all along my refusal to speak about this has been in order to respect your family’s privacy, I am happy to continue to honor you all in this way. I can say that there is an answer, and that in my mind, it is a compelling one. But I care enough about you, and your mom, to continue to be abused as a skunk and a scoundrel — I would rather that continue than to violate a trust. If you are curious about what I could possibly say, I would be very happy to get together with you and explain it. I would not withhold anything from you, in other words. You can ask me anything you want.
I am very sorry about the sins that were committed against you, and I wish you well. God bless.

    * 

Natalie Douglas Wilson
 Thanks for the well wishes.
My parents have been very open and honest with me about the details of their discussions with you before, during, and after the abuse – I know the details (not to mention the fact that I remember them). I’ve discussed all of this with my parents multiple times over the last few days to make sure my memory served me well and that I wasn’t forgetting anything. Nothing about the way parents behaved was incriminating, nothing about their choices to allow Jamin to move into our home and board with our family implicates them in ways that would justify you shaming my father the way you did. They had moments of naivety, yes. They did not know they were dealing with a monster when Jamin moved into our home. They thought they were dealing with an honorable, upright Christian man who would respect the house rules, which, by the way, were VERY CLEAR. They have both admitted that in hindsight they wish they would have seen my emotional struggle but that does not make them negligent parents who did not protect their daughter. It makes them human. Jamin lied and lied and lied more and had my father known I was being hurt and abused he would have kicked him to the curb, quite possibly at the end of a shotgun.
They, along with everyone else, trusted Jamin.
If we may, let’s move away from the treatment of my father for a moment. I’d like to ask you: Do you stand by your decision to defend Jamin in writing to the magistrate judge and request leniency for him?
I have also heard that you claim to have sat with my father and I at the sentencing. I’ve not heard it directly from you but your daughter, Rachel, told me. One of the more vivid memories for me that day was sitting next to my father and looking across the aisle of the courtroom to see you sitting on Jamin’s side of the courtroom. I wasn’t hallucinating.


    Reply from Doug—– crickets chirping

  52. *shakes head*

    Wow.

    I really cannot understand why Wilson would have emailed Dreher the stuff he did about the boarding situation unless…

    1. He’s lying.

    2. Even now, he is being spun by Jamin Wight behind the scenes.

    Praying that the whole truth will be brought into the light.

  53. @ Daisy:

    “Being socialized to be sweet all the time and to lack boundaries can make you more attractive as a target to bullies and abusers.”
    +++++++++++++++++++

    memo to sweet girls and women: kick him in the balls, & kick him hard.

  54. Regarding the disconnect between Thabiti’s action a words, as long as he only touches the situation for his black community then his words do match his actions. I see it as a code word to all his white pedophile protecting white friends in the photo that he will stay out of their business.

  55. Several commentators on Dreher’s blog are defending Sitler by saying that a polygraph test is not always accurate and therefore we do not know for a fact that he was sexually aroused by his infant son. They have not read the court documents. His probation officer states that he admitted being aroused by his son while taking the test. That is not in dispute. However, he failed the polygraph test on the issue of whether there was anything else to confess.

  56. Patti wrote:

    I see it as a code word to all his white pedophile protecting white friends in the photo that he will stay out of their business.

    That would be sick!

    Would he then be fine if I refrained from turning in an African American teenager who I knew was sexually abusing a two year-old?

  57. Hester wrote:

    Let’s just say this tells us WAY more about the author of the comment than about anything related to Wilson or the Sitler family.

    Yes. Does the author of the comment not realize this?

  58. Gram3 wrote:

    Bridget wrote:
    Why has Jamin’s former pastor recognized Jamin’s predatory behavior (and sort of apologized) and Doug Wilson hasn’t?
    That is an interesting question. If Wilson’s assertion is correct, then did Leithart know about this “secret courtship?” If Leithart did not know about the “secret courtship” but found out about it later, why would he not have mentioned that in his acknowledgement (I cannot call it an apology.) Surely Wilson would have informed Leithart about such “courtship” since Wight was a member of Leithart’s church and back then Wilson and Leithart were tight as ticks. But Leithart says nothing about any covert “courtship.”
    Leithart has gone on to other pursuits with Theopolis, and I think he needs to put distance between himself and Wilson. Or perhaps there was a parting of the ways in Moscow and that is why Leithart left Wilsonland. In any case, something does not tally.

    Something does not add up at all! Wilson is placing all blame on Natalie’s parents for what happened to her.

  59. Bridget wrote:

    Wilson is placing all blame on Natalie’s parents for what happened to her.

    I am not excusing Natalie’s parents for being unwise. I’ve made very unwise decisions as well, and I’ve had to accept the responsibility for those. However, assuming for the sake of argument that what Wilson says is true, what Wilson is side-stepping is the *culture* that he and his CREC friends have created where the idea of boarding an adult male in your home in pursuit of a courtship with your young teenage daughter is considered sane. Wilson and the Kirk elders, AFAIK, did not protest the arrangement, and, since Wight was a student at Greyfriars, I assume that Wilson could have ended the unwise boarding situation. But *both* the courtship idea *and* the idea of having young men board with families with young teenage daughters are products of CREC/Recon culture. Wilson owns that culture because he has taught it. He has taught women that they are instruments for male pleasure. What does he expect?

    That is not to say I believe Wilson about the covert courtship, but I can believe that people within the Kirk Kult would think it is normal.

  60. Gram3 wrote:

    Wilson and the Kirk elders, AFAIK, did not protest the arrangement, and, since Wight was a student at Greyfriars, I assume that Wilson could have ended the unwise boarding situation. But *both* the courtship idea *and* the idea of having young men board with families with young teenage daughters are products of CREC/Recon culture. Wilson owns that culture because he has taught it. He has taught women that they are instruments for male pleasure. What does he expect?

    I completely agree with this.

  61. @ Bridget:

    Does the author of the comment not realize this?

    I don’t think he does. Which means he’s either a pervert himself, or surrounded by so many perverts he thinks it’s normal.

  62. After reading the comments about fathers and daughters, I felt so sick and said to myself that if it’s true I want off the bus NOW! Thankfully after Googling a bunch and finding out that NO, it’s NOT normal, I can breathe again. What I am finding is that it occurs in whacko patriarchal religious communities. I also know from education in the past that people, men or women, who entertain themselves with any kind of pornography has a lot to do with their perverted thoughts in their real lives. Therefore I do not trust anyone who even hints at incestrial thoughts being anywhere in a normal range or something to be easily forgiven. In other words, I don’t trust that any of the men in the picture at the top of this post has sexual integrity in their own lives.

  63. I have no idea why my previous post ended up in blue bold (that’s what’s showing on my computer).

  64. Bridget wrote:

    @ Law Prof:
    It was blue. It turned red. Then it turned purple. All this while I was reading it. Quite strange!

    FWIW, looks like it somehow picked up the link to a comment by Corbin up the thread, and so it is blue to show it’s a link — and links turn red when the mouse hovers over them. They are often set to turn purple when they’ve been clicked on.

  65. NJ wrote:

    “At issue was whether he was going to be charged as pedophile, and placed in the same category as one who was molesting little children. But we believed his crime was not in the same category as Steven Sitler’s crimes at all. Steven’s behavior was with young children and was simply predatory. Jamin’s crime was that of engaging in sexual behavior with an underage girl.”

    This right here had me almost cussing out loud. SIMPLY predatory?

    Remember the source:
    “Simply Predatory” = PENETRATING! COLONIZING! CONQUERING! PLANTING!

  66. Bridget wrote:

    Something does not add up at all! Wilson is placing all blame on Natalie’s parents for what happened to her.

    He’s taking the high road by refusing to speak about this stuff, doncha know– and nobly suffering the slings and arrows of being “abused as a skunk and scoundrel” (poor him) because if he talked about all the secret bad stuff he knows about her family, it would “shut down the party”.

  67. NJ wrote:

    I really cannot understand why Wilson would have emailed Dreher the stuff he did about the boarding situation unless…
    1. He’s lying.
    2. Even now, he is being spun by Jamin Wight behind the scenes.

    That would explain the Veddy Veddy Clever smirk on Jamin’s face:

    A manipulator with his trained monkey — DANCE, MONKEY! DANCE!

  68. @ Bridget:
    It is impossible for people who have not seen the inside of the Kirk Kult/CREC to understand why this might have made sense to parents. Just like the Sitler situation and Katie’s parents. From the outside, people appear to have been acting irrationally, but from the inside, their decisions are perfectly consistent with the logic of the cult. Any one of us can be deceived, even if not by the same things. If Katie’s parent’s and Natalie’s parents were the most foolish parents in the world, it still *does not change* Wilson’s culpability and responsibility for promoting the Kirk Kult and his own proprietary denomination which has ensnared many people. I sincerely hope that some of them are waking up to the deception.

  69. @ Dave A A:
    I think HUG has mentioned that narcissists enjoy and are experts at playing the Victim/Hero. Judging by some comments of his supporters, the tactic appears to be working, and they view Wilson as the Victim/Hero in these stories.

  70. Has Piper tweeted anything deep about Wilson lately, or can we assume that Piper still thinks that Wilson has the Gospel right and is a good role model for pastors. IIRC he had Wilson speak at one or two DG pastors conferences.

    Maybe Thabiti wants to revisit his support of Patriarchy since he desires to protect his daughters from predatory males.

  71. Gram3 wrote:

    Has Piper tweeted anything deep about Wilson lately, or can we assume that Piper still thinks that Wilson has the Gospel right and is a good role model for pastors. IIRC he had Wilson speak at one or two DG pastors conferences.

    Yes we can assume that Piper is still behind Wilson. Maybe in a few years he will say something about how bad the situation is and that he wished that he had had more influence, but he didn’t. For now Wilson is still part of the tribe.
    Remember how Dever, Duncan, and Mohler came out in support of Mahaney and how he was a man of integrity. They stick with the tribe. Well Mohler has come out saying who the enemy is. You guessed it – The Roman Catholic Church. It should not be “confused as a friend of the gospel of Jesus Christ”.

    http://www.ligonier.org/blog/enemy-my-enemy-my-friend/

    Personally, I feel more comfortable with the Roman Catholic Church than with the Gospel Glitterati – Dever, Piper, Duncan, Mohler, etc. I feel for you guys in the SBC, with a guy like Mohler driving the bus, who on the one hand thinks Catholics are not friends of the gospel of Jesus and on the other habd thinks that Mahaney is a man of integrity.

  72. I finally got around to reading Natalie’s response, and it is damning. After comparing DW’s posts with hers, there is no doubt in my mind who is speaking the truth.

    I wonder if Warren Throckmorton is right about part of the empire out in Moscow starting to come unraveled.

  73. Will M wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:

    Has Piper tweeted anything deep about Wilson lately, or can we assume that Piper still thinks that Wilson has the Gospel right and is a good role model for pastors. IIRC he had Wilson speak at one or two DG pastors conferences.

    Yes we can assume that Piper is still behind Wilson. Maybe in a few years he will say something about how bad the situation is and that he wished that he had had more influence, but he didn’t. For now Wilson is still part of the tribe.
    Remember how Dever, Duncan, and Mohler came out in support of Mahaney and how he was a man of integrity. They stick with the tribe. Well Mohler has come out saying who the enemy is. You guessed it – The Roman Catholic Church. It should not be “confused as a friend of the gospel of Jesus Christ”.

    http://www.ligonier.org/blog/enemy-my-enemy-my-friend/

    Personally, I feel more comfortable with the Roman Catholic Church than with the Gospel Glitterati – Dever, Piper, Duncan, Mohler, etc. I feel for you guys in the SBC, with a guy like Mohler driving the bus, who on the one hand thinks Catholics are not friends of the gospel of Jesus and on the other habd thinks that Mahaney is a man of integrity.

    Not terribly surprising from al. He and his little circle of Calvinists are the only true believers. I find it interesting that he and others were up in arms (rightly) about the persecution of Middle Eastern Christians, they wrote articles, put up the Nazarene sign in solidarity, meanwhile they were largely orthodox and Catholic. Were they in the states they’d be calling them apostates.

  74. Thanks to everyone for clarifying that it is not normal for fathers to have sexual feelings towards their daughters. For awhile there I was pretty disturbed.

    There are a lot of distorted views floating around out there, and maybe because of the overload of hearing about sexual abuse in the church, it can be hard to discern what really is the truth. I remember after I had the argument with my roommate when the truth came out about Josh Duggar’s teenaged offenses. Dee firmly stated that it is rare for someone to molest their siblings, never mind more than one and other people – and that was a good reality check for me. I was out of town when the other shoe fell for Josh Duggar, and it’s funny how my roommate has never mentioned it. Maybe afraid she would have to say I was right?

  75. Gram3 wrote:

    I think HUG has mentioned that narcissists enjoy and are experts at playing the Victim/Hero. Judging by some comments of his supporters, the tactic appears to be working, and they view Wilson as the Victim/Hero in these stories.

    I’m planning to write up a list, just from the last month, of horrors Doug and fans think his enemies do or would like to do to him, such as “abused as a skunk” above.

  76. NJ wrote:

    At ages 13 and 23 respectively, Natalie was 8 inches taller than Jamin? Is he a midget?

    Probably not. She’s up there in my stratosphere 🙂 I met her in person. She’s tall and gorgeous.

    NJ wrote:

    I wonder if Warren Throckmorton is right about part of the empire out in Moscow starting to come unraveled.

    I can answer affirmative after my recent visit to Moscow and talking with locals.

    Bridget wrote:

    Something does not add up at all! Wilson is placing all blame on Natalie’s parents for what happened to her.

    It’s easier to shift blame than accept responsibility for lapses in judgment.

  77. NJ wrote:

    I wonder if Warren Throckmorton is right about part of the empire out in Moscow starting to come unraveled.

    He certainly hit the nail on the head about Driscoll.

  78. Dave A A wrote:

    Bridget wrote:
    Something does not add up at all! Wilson is placing all blame on Natalie’s parents for what happened to her.
    He’s taking the high road by refusing to speak about this stuff, doncha know– and nobly suffering the slings and arrows of being “abused as a skunk and scoundrel” (poor him) because if he talked about all the secret bad stuff he knows about her family, it would “shut down the party”.

    I have to wonder why Natalie’s mother is still attending Wilson’s church. If he is lying about their family, which both the father and Natalie say that he is, I cannot imagine how she could stay under the spiritual authority of a liar who has torn her family apart, and *continues* even now to harm them.

  79. @ Abi Miah:
    Yeah– strange stuff. Ostensibly, they believe that the husband is spiritual authority of the wife. But when this husband wanted to move his family away (both physically and spiritually) from the Kirk, and his wife wanted to stay, the Kirkelders supported the wife divorcing him. Who knows what the mother is thinking– but if she’s like othe Wilson followers, she’d think her ex and daughter misunderstand Wilson’s good intentions to protect them all.

  80. Law Prof wrote:

    No it’s not human nature!

    I’ll second that, I’ve never even heard of such a thing. These people are very twisted.

  81. Bill M wrote:

    Law Prof wrote:
    No it’s not human nature!
    I’ll second that, I’ve never even heard of such a thing. These people are very twisted.

    Totally twisted. Falls right in line with the Duggar’s claiming, Josh’s molestation of his sister’s, as “normal” adolescent curiosity of the opposite sex. The normal reaction to incest is revulsion, disgust.

  82. NJ wrote:

    I finally got around to reading Natalie’s response, and it is damning. After comparing DW’s posts with hers, there is no doubt in my mind who is speaking the truth.

    I was fairly certain that you’d say that after you read Natalie’s material. 🙂

    Most people who read both Wilson’s and Natalie’s contradicting reports can parse out where the truth lies. But the Wilson followers can’t. Something has gone wrong with their innate sense of seeing the truth when it’s there. Disturbing.

  83. Law Prof wrote:

    How many fathers have not, at some time, experienced an erection looking at their comely daughter? This is human nature.

    No it’s not human nature!

    Bill M wrote:

    I’ll second that, I’ve never even heard of such a thing. These people are very twisted.

    Glad to hear it. Living with it growing up made me wonder. If it were true, or often true, I’d crawl in a hole somewhere and never come out.

  84. They’re talkers. I won’t go into detail. I emailed Dee a few months ago detailing some of this, and if you want more, email me. I am a member of one of their churches. A family member went through an excruciating experience, my daughter, and not one person from the staff or Pastors or Elders called, emailed, visited or otherwise contacted her. I even asked two of the Pastors, one in person, and one via email, why no one contacted her. *crickets*. No response. “We really want to take the side of victims……..” Not true. They came to the rescue of the accused. In the end, nothing could be proved, and I can give you details, but not here. Nevertheless, there was absolutely no victim support.

  85. I wonder if Warren Throckmorton is right about part of the empire out in Moscow starting to come unraveled.

    “I can answer affirmative after my recent visit to Moscow and talking with locals.”

    Yes!! Glad to know.

  86. Bob m wrote:

    They’re talkers.

    I think that is true from what we can observe. I am so sorry for what your daughter went through and what the rest of the family has endured as well. And especially I am sorry that men who claim to be called as shepherds do not take care of the less powerful. I have wondered why this happens, and I think that a victim is evidence that their system is not perfect and infallible. Therefore, the victim must be dispensed with in a way. The perpetrator’s offenses must be minimized or explained away. It all seems to me to be in service to the agenda/system/personalities and not about real people at all.

  87. NJ wrote:

    At ages 13 and 23 respectively, Natalie was 8 inches taller than Jamin? Is he a midget?

    I think we all understand he is a small man. As with his victim, there is no reason to make note of his stature but a healthy 23 year old man is looking for a relationship among his peers. I am more concerned about the metaphoric missing 8 inches of character rather than his small man complex.

  88. Gram3 wrote:

    I am sorry that men who claim to be called as shepherds do not take care of the less powerful.

    They not only don’t take care of the less powerful, whatever power a woman might have on her own, they strip it away and make her believe she is less than she is.

    Woeful shepherds indeed.

  89. Debra Baker wrote:

    I think we all understand he is a small man.

    This from Katie Botkin’s latest post: “Doug claims that Natalie was 8″ taller than Jamin. Natalie, full grown, is 6’1″ and even if she had been that height at age 14, Jamin is approximately 5’9″ … Not 5’5.” Either way, height has no bearing on someone’s ability to resist the emotional manipulation of a serial abuser. However, rounding up a few inches difference to eight inches difference should tell people just how concerned Doug Wilson is with the accuracy of his account…”

    http://kbotkin.com/2015/10/01/obvious-lies-and-gratuitous-spins/#comments

  90. Debra Baker wrote:

    I am more concerned about the metaphoric missing 8 inches of character rather than his small man complex.

    Yep. I have a very blonde cousin who is 6’2”. She married a Flipino guy who is 5’4”. She says that it took her a while to find all she wants in a man. That they each came in an unexpected packages simply makes them love each other more.

  91. Bridget wrote:

    It [the entire text of Lawprof’s comment] was blue. It turned red. Then it turned purple. All this while I was reading it. Quite strange!

    It is all part of a hyperlink: that’s why it appears first as bold, blue type. It means that somehow the {/a} hashtag was removed during LawProf’s editing process, or possibly just as a result of a Microsoft Moment without intervention on LawProf’s part at all.

    When you hover the cursor over hyperlink text, it turns red. Then, when you click on it to follow it, it turns purple to register the fact that you’ve followed it.

    IHTIH.

  92. @ Mara:
    “Women need to refuse to comply to the commands of these small minded men. We are not helping them to grow and mature. When we stunt ourselves for their sakes, we are really only allowing them to remain stunted in their false security of “Biblical Manhood”.”

    Exactly. If Wilson’s combox is representative, there are many small men at Christ Church. They command respect but only get it from those who have lost self-respect. Blech

  93. mirele wrote:

    It’s not that I hate the name, but nobody can pronounce it.

    “Bulbeck” is easy enough to pronounce, but I’ve spent my entire adult life spelling it.

    B… U… one “L”, B, E for Edward, C, K. In Scotland, if I say “E” in my English accent, it sounds as though I’ve said “A” in a local accent and I go on the system as “Bulback”.

    For further information on Scottish accents, see the inimitable Stanley Baxter’s “Parliamo Glasgow”:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_Lk7qivXbw

  94. My daughter, Christy and I have been discussing something for a few days. She pointed out that these men like Wilson don’t believe in John 3-16 where it says Christ died for all people, not just men. They also aren’t practicing the 2nd greatest commandment – love your neighbor as your self. They are forgetting that we as women are children of God, which makes us daughters of Christ. Every pastor, every parent, and every husband should treat women the way Christ as our father treats us. You protect the daughters and sons of Christ in every way possible. You love your neighbor as yourself (members of the congregation in this instance) as the most precious thing you have ever seen. You stand up for these daughters, you don’t make things difficult for them. You go out of your way to make sure they aren’t victimized in any way. I am a mama bear when it comes to my kids, and they are both grown adults now. To think that a pastor, who is ” a shepherd of his flock” wouldn’t be the protector of the children of God in his post as minister, is outrageous. I would love to see ministers start preaching a series on loving our neighbor as ourselves. To talk about what we can do for our neighbors and for the children of God. When I stop and think about how Wilson acted in these cases, it makes me sick. He is in a position to go out of his way to be a spokesperson for the children. But no, he goes the other way and refuses to take the side of the innocent ones. Loving my neighbor as myself goes beyond loving my family. It leads to helping out those in need no matter the situation. It means ministering to them. How many of us have ever been up on a church platform during a service whether it be singing in the choir or playing an instrument during services. You look out on the congregation and see the hurt in peoples eyes. If I as a non minister could see this, then how much more should a true minister of Christ see this. Loving and protecting his congregation should be high on his list of priorities. I’m sure if they even register on Wilson’s radar.

  95. @ Bob m:

    I am so sorry for what your daughter experienced. Please take comfort in knowing that the actions (or lack thereof) of these so-called 'men of God' have not escaped the attention of Almighty God.

  96. Amy Smith wrote:

    Hey there’s Matt “narcissistic zero” Chandler smiling so proudly with his bros. He’s “no fan” of bloggers you know. He says bloggers live with their moms. https://vimeo.com/33474316

    Wow! And only pastors and church leaders are qualified to determine when someone is wrong???

  97. harley wrote:

    My daughter, Christy and I have been discussing something for a few days. She pointed out that these men like Wilson don’t believe in John 3-16 where it says Christ died for all people, not just men.

    Their religion is patriarchy, not Christianity. Jesus Christ is just a veneer over their real belief, which is the supremacy of men. This comes out very much in seeing how the Sitler and Wight situations were handled. Of course Douglas Wilson is going to support Jamin Wight and Steven Sitler–his male supremacist ideology requires it. To question the other men would be to undermine their authority.

    And Doug/Doug’s followers, I know you’re reading here, so I’m going to point something out. Yes, legally, Jamin Wight was not a pedophile, as that term is used for children. Natalie was a 13 YO girls, so Jamin Wight’s attraction was “hebephilia.”

    THAT SAID, let me completely clear here: What he did to Natalie was illegal, it was statutory rape. I’ve read what Natalie and her father have written, and I’ve read what Doug has written. Doug Wilson has been less than forthcoming about the crimes committed by Jamin Wight. Instead, Wilson has tried to place those crimes back on the parents (oh, they let Wight into their house and allowed a courtship–the former we know is a regular deal in the Kirk and the latter is a lie), and on Natalie (who was a tall teenager and now a tall woman). Again, let me be clear: In a bright-line crime such as statutory rape, there is no “contributory negligence.” If you have sex with a person under the age of consent, it’s rape.

    When Doug Wilson brings up Natalie’s parents or Natalie herself, he’s trying to bring notions of contributory negligence into the picture. That is totally and completely inappropriate here, to say nothing of *wrong*. What Jamin Wight did was a crime and so far, everything I’ve seen come out of Doug Wilson has been an attempt to minimize the crime or cast the blame back on the victim or her parents. This is simply evil.

    If you’re a follower of Doug Wilson, you need to think very clearly about your beliefs: Are you following Jesus Christ and him crucified, or a man who has put the worship of men, maleness and patriarchy above every other thing in the world, including Jesus? That’s a question only you can answer.

  98. Nancy2 wrote:

    Amy Smith wrote:
    Hey there’s Matt “narcissistic zero” Chandler smiling so proudly with his bros. He’s “no fan” of bloggers you know. He says bloggers live with their moms. https://vimeo.com/33474316
    Wow! And only pastors and church leaders are qualified to determine when someone is wrong???

    Correct. [so says Matt Chandler who dropped out of seminary twice. Oh and he blogs…does he live with his mom?] http://www.thevillagechurch.net/the-village-blog/thoughts-concerning-seminary/

  99. Former CLC’er wrote:

    Thanks to everyone for clarifying that it is not normal for fathers to have sexual feelings towards their daughters. For awhile there I was pretty disturbed.

    People who are disturbed, mentally ill or just plain evil sometimes tend to think they’re the norm. In my personal opinion, this explains why the deluded fellow (William Dalton?) thinks there’s nary a man who isn’t aroused by his own daughters and why J.D. Hall allegedly thinks that it’s common for Christian men to fantasize about assaulting women.

    Of course it’s not! But maybe it is among people in those crowds.

  100. Amy Smith wrote:

    He says bloggers live with their moms

    Whether or not a blogger lives with their mother neither qualifies nor disqualifies. There are other factors involved that have nothing to do with where a blogger lives.

    I know. I don’t need to state the obvious here. You all know this.
    Chandler just desires do deflect and misdirect. He doesn’t want to face the music. And he doesn’t want anyone else to look at it either. He doesn’t deal in truth. He deals in lies and power posturing.

  101. Patrice wrote:

    there are many small men at Christ Church

    Yes there are. Because I’m sure Douggie-poo wouldn’t allow any men bigger than him. And he’s pretty tiny.

  102. Nancy2 wrote:

    Wow! And only pastors and church leaders are qualified to determine when someone is wrong???

    There are far too many pastors I wouldn’t trust to determine when someone is wrong.

  103. @ Mara:
    Perhaps my all-time favorite movie line, by Mr Shunderson in ‘People Will Talk’:
    “Prof. Elwell, you’re a little man. It’s not that you’re short. You’re little in the mind and in the heart. Tonight you tried to make a man little whose boots you couldn’t touch if you stood on tiptoe on top of the highest mountain in the world. And as it turned out, you’re even littler than you were before.”

  104. Dee, I’ll pray for you, too. Thank you for continuing to do TWW while also caring for your parents and children. In other words, for setting an example of living it out instead of just talking about it.

  105. Deana Holmes wrote:

    If you’re a follower of Doug Wilson, you need to think very clearly about your beliefs: Are you following Jesus Christ and him crucified, or a man who has put the worship of men, maleness and patriarchy above every other thing in the world, including Jesus? That’s a question only you can answer.

    Thanks for bringing clarity to the fog and smoke Wilson is putting out there to obscure the real issues. As for Wilson followers, the ones I’ve known are in love with their idea of being serious and in-the-know about deep theology that other people cannot understand. Until they recognize that in themselves, I doubt that they will see Wilson for what he is. The Leader and the Followers both get what they want, so they cycle continues until, as you said, someone realizes that they love Christ more than they love a man or an ideology.

  106. Nancy2 wrote:

    Amy Smith wrote:
    Hey there’s Matt “narcissistic zero” Chandler smiling so proudly with his bros. He’s “no fan” of bloggers you know. He says bloggers live with their moms. https://vimeo.com/33474316
    Wow! And only pastors and church leaders are qualified to determine when someone is wrong???

    You know, they pretty much believe that, as do many of their followers.

    It is not necessarily surprising to me that rapacious wolves like to steal away people’s rights to be co-equals and priests in Christ, what is remarkable to me is cheaply some will sell away that right for a little perceived community and security.

  107. “Who really cares about the issues surrounding pedophiles and sex abuse?”

    Yet another sad report of church sex abuse and cover-up in the news this morning. This time, the cover-up may have contributed to the victim committing suicide. A lawsuit just filed claims that church leadership at First Baptist Church, Rockwall, TX (an SBC church) “engaged in this conspiracy to avoid prosecution, to cover up sexual misconduct and abuse and to conceal claims arising from crimes or conduct of their youth pastor.”

    At the time the suit was filed, the youth pastor was employed as youth minister at Grace Community Church, in Greenville, TX … a reformed church. He has since resigned. Reports of abuse continue to rise in New Calvinist ranks. These folks are a law unto themselves … redefining right and wrong in the context of God’s sovereignty. A scary bunch of leaders have been unleashed on the American church. (I’m not sure of the theological leaning of the leaders at First Baptist Rockwall, but their Twitter account does retweet The Gospel Coalition).

    An article on this sad development is posted at: https://baptistnews.com/culture/social-issues/item/30538-lawsuit-says-church-s-abuse-cover-up-caused-suicide

  108. Oh Dee, that is a lot of tough stuff going on. Big love out to you & yours & prayers for the best outcome for each person. XXX

  109. Gram3 wrote:

    As for Wilson followers, the ones I’ve known are in love with their idea of being serious and in-the-know about deep theology that other people cannot understand.

    Deep Spiritual Things that only a Speshul Illuminated Few can Understand?

    Isn’t that called Gnosticism?

    And if these Deep Things are Hidden (“OCCULT” in Greek) from the Un-Illuminated Rabble, isn’t that called OCCULTISM?

  110. Gram3 wrote:

    As for Wilson followers, the ones I’ve known are in love with their idea of being serious and in-the-know about deep theology that other people cannot understand.

    “Ours is a High and Lonely Destiny…”
    — C.S.Lewis, Chronicles of Narnia: The Magician’s Nephew

  111. Nancy2 wrote:

    Wow! And only pastors and church leaders are qualified to determine when someone is wrong???

    They are the Illuminati, with Speshul Occult Gnosis.

  112. Law Prof wrote:

    It is not necessarily surprising to me that rapacious wolves like to steal away people’s rights to be co-equals and priests in Christ, what is remarkable to me is cheaply some will sell away that right for a little perceived community and security.

    I know. It scares me for the church and our country as a whole. Handing over power to others to make spiritual and/or personal choices for us will have dreadful consequences over time. And it will become the normal.

  113. @ Dave A A:

    Ostensibly, they believe that the husband is spiritual authority of the wife. But when this husband wanted to move his family away (both physically and spiritually) from the Kirk, and his wife wanted to stay, the Kirkelders supported the wife divorcing him.

    Well, that girl in the courtship documentary that was being made, found a new “spiritual father” to conduct her courtship when her bio dad thought it was crazy and wouldn’t go along with it. So apparently fathers and husbands are spiritual coverings and extremely important, etc. until they won’t get with the program, at which point they can be replaced by any random willing adult male who believes in Christian patriarchy.

  114. Dee, you are certainly being “sandwiched” now. God is with you and will help you. Prayers.

  115. Nancy2 wrote:

    When my daughter was 18, she broke up with a boyfriend who was bad news. He didn’t take it well became violent with her. She hit him in the head with a ratchet, stunning him long enough to get away from him. If she hadn’t fought back, there’s no telling what he would have done.

    This is awesome—that your daughter has this kind of courage and strength, not to mention presence of mind!

  116. Hester wrote:

    So apparently fathers and husbands are spiritual coverings and extremely important, etc. until they won’t get with the program, at which point they can be replaced by any random willing adult male who believes in Christian patriarchy.

    Just as a joke, I asked my (younger, but still middle-aged) brother last Sunday if he’d be my headship. He proceeded to make a rude hand gesture. He did not ask me if I was on some sort of drugs, which surprised me. But the hand gesture, no surprise there.

  117. RE: the rogues gallery at the top of the post,

    One thing I’ve never been able to understand about these guys, their churches and their religion is this:
    If a guy hooks up with a consenting adult of legal age and gets caught, his goose is cooked and his hash is settled, he will never again be allowed full participation in the life of his church.
    And yet if he’s a predatory pedophile, said churches will bend over backwards to ‘restore him’ and keep his crimes hidden from the civil authorities.
    I know I’m not alone in wondering about this level of cognitive dissonance because it makes no sense and it also makes one wonder how the leaders of these aberrant sects can maintain such a strangle hold on their followers.

  118. Patrice wrote:

    NJ wrote:
    I finally got around to reading Natalie’s response, and it is damning. After comparing DW’s posts with hers, there is no doubt in my mind who is speaking the truth.
    I was fairly certain that you’d say that after you read Natalie’s material.
    Most people who read both Wilson’s and Natalie’s contradicting reports can parse out where the truth lies. But the Wilson followers can’t. Something has gone wrong with their innate sense of seeing the truth when it’s there. Disturbing.

    Cognitive dissonance. The new information from Natalie would require a revision of their opinion of Wilson and whether or not he is truthful. People tend to absorb information that confirms their previous beliefs and to push away information that contradicts those beliefs, because changing beliefs, especially about something like how trustworthy the pastor is, can rock your world. There is a bias toward keeping your world/kirk/life steady. So, if a person is deeply involved in the kirk and has always looked up to Wilson, it will be easiest to disbelieve Natalie. That doesn’t kick in for people with no emotional investment.

  119. Hester wrote:

    @ Dave A A:
    Ostensibly, they believe that the husband is spiritual authority of the wife. But when this husband wanted to move his family away (both physically and spiritually) from the Kirk, and his wife wanted to stay, the Kirkelders supported the wife divorcing him.
    Well, that girl in the courtship documentary that was being made, found a new “spiritual father” to conduct her courtship when her bio dad thought it was crazy and wouldn’t go along with it. So apparently fathers and husbands are spiritual coverings and extremely important, etc. until they won’t get with the program, at which point they can be replaced by any random willing adult male who believes in Christian patriarchy.

    Exactly. I have observed this first hand. Every male in the whole (extended) family can be against something, but that doesn’t count if it’s not “with the program” as you put it.

  120. Dee – I’m praying for grace for all of this, and that there would be people to help support you, as you continually support others!

  121. Hester wrote:

    @ Dave A A:
    Ostensibly, they believe that the husband is spiritual authority of the wife. But when this husband wanted to move his family away (both physically and spiritually) from the Kirk, and his wife wanted to stay, the Kirkelders supported the wife divorcing him.
    Well, that girl in the courtship documentary that was being made, found a new “spiritual father” to conduct her courtship when her bio dad thought it was crazy and wouldn’t go along with it. So apparently fathers and husbands are spiritual coverings and extremely important, etc. until they won’t get with the program, at which point they can be replaced by any random willing adult male who believes in Christian patriarchy.

    Exactly. I have observed this first hand. Every male in the whole (extended) family can be against something, but that doesn’t count if it’s not “with the program” as you put it. NJ wrote:

    At ages 13 and 23 respectively, Natalie was 8 inches taller than Jamin? Is he a midget?

    According to Kate Botkin, Wight is 5’9″. As an adult, Natalie is 6’1″. That’s 4 inches difference, not 8—as if it really matters. Wilson needs to do some fact-checking. He is grasping at straws to try to avoid the clear line-in-the-sand in the law: a person under the age of 16 cannot consent to sex with a person above the age of 16.

  122. @ harley:

    All good points.

    As has been pointed out by others, complementarian / patriarchal Christians also tend to behave as though only men were redeemed by Christ’s work at the cross, while women, (even post-cross/ post-resurrection) are still stuck with Eve’s sin from the Garden of Eden.

    It’s like Christ’s redemptive actions in their theology only worked its mojo on males, not on females. And I don’t recall the Bible noting anywhere the Christ only came to redeem the male gender.

  123. Amy Smith wrote:

    Hey there’s Matt “narcissistic zero” Chandler smiling so proudly with his bros. He’s “no fan” of bloggers you know. He says bloggers live with their moms. …

    Pastor Robert Morris also recently denigrated bloggers in some sermon or speech he gave.

    Gateway Church Pastor Robert Morris Calls Blogs “Satan’s Hit List”
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2015/09/27/gateway-pastor-robert-morris-calls-blogs-satans-hit-list/

    Some of these preachers and Christian celebrities really, really resent bloggers.

  124. Mara wrote:

    And he’s pretty tiny.

    You mean height-wise? Because I’ve seen a few photos of him, and he looks somewhat chubby.

    (Before anyone gets bent out of shape at that comment of mine, be aware that I exercise regularly, or else I have a tendency to get chubby myself. I have to work to keep my weight down, and it’s only getting harder as I age.)

  125. Abi Miah wrote:

    According to Kate Botkin, Wight is 5’9″. As an adult, Natalie is 6’1″. That’s 4 inches difference, not 8—as if it really matters. Wilson needs to do some fact-checking. He is grasping at straws to try to avoid the clear line-in-the-sand in the law: a person under the age of 16 cannot consent to sex with a person above the age of 16.

    Well,der, obvs none of us got the extra special memo form Jesus that says you can’t sexually assault anyone taller than you. Even if she’s a 13 yr old girl & you’re a grown man. Wilson absolutely beggars belief that he’d trundle this out as some kind of mitigation. What kind of drugs is he taking? (Or should he be taking?)

  126. Law Prof wrote:

    what is remarkable to me is cheaply some will sell away that right for a little perceived community and security

    I was going to quibble and say they give it away but you are correct, they do get something in return. It is a codependent relationship.
    “people with codependency often form or maintain relationships that are one-sided, emotionally destructive and/or abusive.”

  127. Daisy wrote:

    Amy Smith wrote:
    Hey there’s Matt “narcissistic zero” Chandler smiling so proudly with his bros. He’s “no fan” of bloggers you know. He says bloggers live with their moms. …
    Pastor Robert Morris also recently denigrated bloggers in some sermon or speech he gave.
    Gateway Church Pastor Robert Morris Calls Blogs “Satan’s Hit List”
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2015/09/27/gateway-pastor-robert-morris-calls-blogs-satans-hit-list/
    Some of these preachers and Christian celebrities really, really resent bloggers.

    It’s funny and unintentionally ironic, because virtually all of them, to a celebrity, are bloggers and make extensive use of social media to put their views out, which quite often include vigorous denunciations of others. It would seem almost as if, at the end of the day, anyone who tries to be a Berean to Robert Morris, anyone who calls him out for anything, is a tool of Satan.

  128. NJ wrote:

    At ages 13 and 23 respectively, Natalie was 8 inches taller than Jamin? Is he a midget?

    Thank you!! I was thinking the same thing.

  129. Dave A A wrote:

    Bridget wrote:

    Something does not add up at all! Wilson is placing all blame on Natalie’s parents for what happened to her.

    He’s taking the high road by refusing to speak about this stuff, doncha know– and nobly suffering the slings and arrows of being “abused as a skunk and scoundrel” (poor him) because if he talked about all the secret bad stuff he knows about her family, it would “shut down the party”.

    He’s being accused of being a snake & a soundrel, because he IS a snake & a scoundrel. (Poor wittle Dougie-Wougie!!)

  130. Corbin wrote:

    From the comments on Dreher’s post:
    “William Dalton says: How many fathers have not, at some time, experienced an erection looking at their comely daughter? This is human nature. There is no crime unless unlawful feelings precipitate unlawful actions. Most men who experience sexual arousal in the presence of their adult daughters control themselves. Why should our expectations be any different of the man who experiences sexual arousal in the presence of his infant child

    This guy is sick!!! I wonder if this is what he truly believes? Or, is he just a Wilson worshiper who is trying to justify Wilson’s feelings towards pedopiles, women, and children?

  131. Law Prof wrote:

    It’s funny and unintentionally ironic, because virtually all of them, to a celebrity, are bloggers

    Their arrogance has blinded them. They do not even know that they are hypocrites.

    Do as they say not as they do.
    What is our problem that we cannot clearly see that they are our spiritual ‘betters’?
    What is our problem that we do not agree with our ‘betters’ and the spiritual elitism/caste system that they are laboriously building to replace the Words and Works of Jesus Christ.

    Yep, it is ironic.
    It is also pathetic, disgusting, and Pharisaical.

  132. @ Law Prof:
    heh, yes, compared to someone like Joan Didion who has been globally famous for decades as a writer and a journalist nobody knows or cares who Matt Chandler is, for instance. Even compared to, say, Bruce Campbell, these guys are nobodies.

    I’ve got something incubating about the hypocrisy of bloggers blogging against bloggers as if the activity itself were a bad thing but that’s probably going to wait a bit.

  133. Beakerj wrote:

    Wilson absolutely beggars belief that he’d trundle this out as some kind of mitigation. What kind of drugs is he taking? (Or should he be taking?)

    That Veddy Veddy Expensive Imported Scotch?

  134. Nancy2 wrote:

    This guy is sick!!! I wonder if this is what he truly believes? Or, is he just a Wilson worshiper who is trying to justify Wilson’s feelings towards pedopiles, women, and children?

    Again, Craster’s Keep.

  135. @ zooey111:
    Keeping in mind– he didn’t claim he’s aCCused as a scoundrel, but aBused as one. So if people call him names, he considers himself abused.

  136. Pingback: Not All Comps | Sparking Conversation UNITED STATES